Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Sicherheit (5) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (4)
- Sonstige (1)
Motorcycling is a fascinating kind of transportation. While the riders' direct exposure to the environment and the unique driving dynamics are essential to this fascination, they both cause a risk potential which is several times higher than when driving a car. This chapter gives a detailed introduction to the fundamentals of motorcycle dynamics and shows how its peculiarities and limitations place high demands on the layout of dynamics control systems, especially when cornering. The basic principles of dynamic stabilization and directional control are addressed along with four characteristic modes of instability (capsize, wobble, weave, and kickback). Special attention is given to the challenges of braking (brake force distribution, dynamic over-braking, kinematic instability, and brake steer torque induced righting behavior). It is explained how these challenges are addressed by state-of-the-art brake, traction, and suspension control systems in terms of system layout and principles of function. It is illustrated how the integration of additional sensors " essentially roll angle assessment " enhances the cornering performance in all three categories, fostering a trend to higher system integration levels. An outlook on potential future control systems shows exemplarily how the undesired righting behavior when braking in curves can be controlled, e.g., by means of a so-called brake steer torque avoidance mechanism (BSTAM), forming the basis for predictive brake assist (PBA) or even autonomous emergency braking (AEB). Finally, the very limited potential of brake and chassis control to stabilize yaw and roll motion during unbraked cornering accidents is regarded, closing with a promising glance at roll stabilization through a pair of gimbaled gyroscopes.
Fahrdynamikregelungen für Zweispurfahrzeuge haben in der letzten Dekade stark dazu beigetragen, die Getötetenzahlen im Straßenverkehr auf einen seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg nicht gekannten Tiefststand zu senken. Die Getötetenzahlen bei Einspurfahrzeugen, speziell Motorrädern, sind im selben Zeitraum bei weitem nicht im selben Maße gesunken. Zwar existieren für Motorräder ABS-Bremssysteme und Antriebsschlupfregelungen, aber darüber hinaus gehende technische Lösungen zur Stabilisierung des Motorrads sind nicht bekannt. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, abzuschätzen, ob Fahrdynamikregelungen für Motorräder einerseits technisch möglich sind und andererseits zur deutlichen Senkung der Unfallzahlen von Motorrädern beitragen können. Aus einer Analyse des Unfallgeschehens wurden für zukünftige Fahrdynamikregelungen ungebremste Kurvenunfälle durch ßberschreiten der maximalen Querbeschleunigung und durch Reibwertsprünge (wie beispielsweise glatte Fahrbahnabschnitte, Sand, ßl, Bitumen und dergleichen) als relevante Unfalltypen identifiziert und als Hauptszenarien für potenzielle Fahrdynamikregelsysteme herangezogen. Ihr Anteil am Unfallgeschehen von Motorrädern wurde mit etwa 4 bis 8 % abgeschätzt. Dazu wurden Motorradexperten nach ihren bisher erlebten Unfällen befragt und die Unfälle einer großen Unfalldatenbank im Detail untersucht. Die beiden Grundszenarien wurden mittels Simulationen und Fahrversuchen hinsichtlich besonderer Erkennungsmerkmale untersucht. Dabei erwies sich die Schwimmwinkelgeschwindigkeit des Fahrzeugs als robustes Kriterium zur Erkennung beginnender ungebremster Kurvenunfälle. ßhnlich große Schwimmwinkelgeschwindigkeiten wurden bei einer Vielzahl von unkritischen Fahrten nicht gefunden. Die Beeinflussbarkeit der untersuchten kritischen Fahrsituationen wurde mit Hilfe eines Modells für die Fahrzeugbewegung während der kritischen Fahrsituationen abgeschätzt. Eine Beeinflussung des Rollmoments zum Aufrichten des Fahrzeugs ist nicht möglich, da weder die Seitenkraft am Reifen in diesen Szenarien, wie es erforderlich wäre, erhöht werden kann, noch realistisch dimensionierte Kreisel diese Stabilisierung erbringen können. Eine Beeinflussung der Schwimmbewegung ist hingegen technisch sinnvoll durch Veränderung der Seitenkräfte über Bremsschlupf an den Rädern darstellbar. Auf diese Weise kann eine Destabilisierung des gleitenden Fahrzeugs beim ßbergang von Niedrig zurück auf Hochreibwert vermieden werden. Damit lässt sich jedoch nur eine kleine Untermenge der genannten Unfallszenarien günstig beeinflussen, sodass als Ergebnis dieser Untersuchung das Potenzial von Fahrdynamikregelungen als recht gering einzuschätzen ist.
It is commonly agreed that active safety will have a significant impact on reducing accident figures for pedestrians and probably also bicyclists. However, chances and limitations for active safety systems have only been derived based on accident data and the current state of the art, based on proprietary simulation models. The objective of this article is to investigate these chances and limitations by developing an open simulation model. This article introduces a simulation model, incorporating accident kinematics, driving dynamics, driver reaction times, pedestrian dynamics, performance parameters of different autonomous emergency braking (AEB) generations, as well as legal and logical limitations. The level of detail for available pedestrian accident data is limited. Relevant variables, especially timing of the pedestrian appearance and the pedestrian's moving speed, are estimated using assumptions. The model in this article uses the fact that a pedestrian and a vehicle in an accident must have been in the same spot at the same time and defines the impact position as a relevant accident parameter, which is usually available from accident data. The calculations done within the model identify the possible timing available for braking by an AEB system as well as the possible speed reduction for different accident scenarios as well as for different system configurations. The simulation model identifies the lateral impact position of the pedestrian as a significant parameter for system performance, and the system layout is designed to brake when the accident becomes unavoidable by the vehicle driver. Scenarios with a pedestrian running from behind an obstruction are the most demanding scenarios and will very likely never be avoidable for all vehicle speeds due to physical limits. Scenarios with an unobstructed person walking will very likely be treatable for a wide speed range for next generation AEB systems.
Euro NCAP will start to test pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEB) from 2016 on. Test procedures for these tests had been developed by and discussed between the AsPeCSS project and other initiatives (e.g. the AEB group with Thatcham Research from the UK). This paper gives an overview on the development process from the AsPeCSS side, summarizes the current test and assessment procedures as of March 2015 and shows test and assessment results of five cars that had been tested by BASt for AsPeCSS and the respective manufacturer. The test and assessment methodology seems appropriate to rate the performance of different vehicles. The best test result - still one year ahead of the test implementation - is around 80%, while the worst rating result is around 10%. Other vehicles are between these boundaries.
A methodology to derive precision requirements for automatic emergency braking (AEB) test procedures
(2015)
AEB Systems are becoming important to increase traffic safety. Test procedures in testing for consumer information, manufacturer self-certification and technical regulations are used to ensure a certain minimum performance of these systems. Consequently, test robustness, test efficiency and finally test cost become increasingly important. The key driver for testing effort and test costs is the required repeatable accuracy in a test design - the higher the accuracy, the higher effort and test costs. On the other hand, the performance of active safety systems depends on time discretization in the environment perception and other sub-systems: for instance, typical sensors supply information with a cycle time of 50 - 150 ms. Time discretization results in an inherent spread of system performance, even if the test conditions are perfectly equal. The proposed paper shows a methodology to derive requirements for a test setup (e.g. test repeats, use of driving robots, ...) as function of AEB system generation and rating method (e.g. Euro NCAP points awarded, pass/fail, ...). While the methodology itself is applicable to AEB pedestrian and AEB Car-Car scenarios, due to the lack of sufficient test data for AEB Car-Car, the focus of this paper is on AEB pedestrian scenarios. A simulation model for the performance of AEB Pedestrian systems allows for the systematic variation of the discretization time as well as test condition accuracy. This model is calibrated with test results of 4 production vehicles for AEB Pedestrian, all fully tested by BASt according to current Euro NCAP test protocols. Selected parameters to observe the accuracy of the test setup in case of pedestrian AEB is the calculated impact position of pedestrian on the vehicle front (as if no braking would have occurred), and the test vehicle speed accuracy. These variable was shown in real tests to be repeatable in the range of ± 5 cm and ± 0,25 km/h, respectively, with a fully robotized state of the art test setup. The sensitivity of AEB performance (measured in achieved speed reduction as well as overall rating result according to current Euro NCAP rating methods) towards discretization and the sensitivity of performance towards test accuracy then is compared to identify economic yet robust test concepts. These comparisons show that the available repeatability accuracy of current test setups is more than sufficient for today's AEB system capabilities. Time discretization problems dominate the performance spread especially in test scenarios with a limited pedestrian dummy reveal time (e.g. child behind obstruction, running adult scenarios with low car speeds). This would allow to increase test tolerances to decrease test cost. A methodology which allows to derive the required tolerances in active safety tests might be valuable especially for NCAPs of emerging countries that do not have the necessary equipment (e.g. driving robots, positioning units) available for the full-scale and high tolerance EuroNCAP active safety procedures yet still want to rate active safety systems, thus improving the global safety.